What seperates Humans from Machines? Anything?

What do you think differentiates a human from a machine?
Do you think we will be replaced? Do you think Turing’s test is a good representation of deciding which is which?

The question of consciousness and sentience seems simple by definition. The things that make us human and animals is our ability to emote. Things like communication, working together, and adaptation are all traits of things like plants and other non sentient things. The same question is proposed with robots. If a robot could emulate humans in every way from learning to communicating, will it ever cease to be an imitation of life? If the machine could simulate emotion based on it's history of learning and understanding of it's surroundings how is it different from us? Even though our brains are wired differently, we could still think and learn to arrive at the same conclusions. If a robot can arrive at the prospect of emotion from a purely logical standpoint based in a perspective of it's history, then how is it different? Could the emotions, passions, and etc. we experience purely logical aspect of the human experience? Technically the feelings we have are the results of a series of complex chemical interaction responding to electric stimuli with the environment, is that necessarily different with the electric repines of robots to their environment? We are told to be unafraid to question the nature of humanity itself, but perhaps the conclusion more depressing than we wish to think. Our emotions could be essentially empty, only unique in that they are easily created. If our emotions could be recreated by a machine, then perhaps they are no more unique than our ability to walk, reason, and see things. Creativity could befall the same fate of emotion under the same circumstances. I suppose you could ask a replicate from Blade Runner if they ever feel a part of the human experience, certainly they feel prejudice and injustice.

The Turing test is a fun and simple exercise to get people to think differently, but it is purely a psychological test. The level of subjective in these experiments don't properly evaluate what traits make us human. The question of what makes us human may be just beyond our reach, if there is something distinct at all (outside of the obvious human species of animal.) Perhaps a robot is simply a percentage of human based on how closely it imitates each aspect of what we can do. So yeah short answer, No. The test is however a good examination of the quality algorithms and psychological knowledge of what the majority of people think is human.

What Future Technologies mean for Humanity

Humans understand the world in only 3 dimensions and communicate in a very slow, serial fashion called speech. But can this be improved on? Can we use technology to upgrade humans?


As we discussed this question, the issue of whether we as a species will make it to this supposed future. Yes, the technology is there and if our progress stays on track we will see the technology we dream of here manifested. I mentioned Stephen Hawking's quote, that if we make it through this century that the human species is set on track to avoid extinction for many millennia. I think this is relevant, because he arrives at this conclusion based off of the potential of our future technologies with advanced computers, cyborgification, etc. Presuming we do make it to see this future, I think creativity and right brained thinking will be all the more important.
Consider how the nature of work has changed for us and where it is going in our immediate future. Daniel Pink's book A Whole New Mind addresses that creative jobs will be the in demand jobs now and in the future for working in developed countries. If we were to make the massive jump to this cybernetic future envisioned now, it would be all the more important of a commodity. Creativity is theoretically what separates us from the machines, and as machines inevitably surpass us in thinking power (even with cyborg enhancements) human will have to struggle to offer something machines can't do. It's the same dilemma many workers faced as the assembly line was replaced more and more with machines. I also imagine studies into HCI (human-computer interaction) will be massive growing field as well, as the future ensures computers and the internet will need to be seamless with our daily lives as well accessible by human thought. The big questions still remain though about what this will due to knowledge, how we process data, and how we think. Will we learn to think like computers? can we? What about visa versa? What are the still critical aspects of human jobs that won't be taken over by machines? If we live long enough, we might just find out.

Neuromancer

Do you think there are situations that are similar to this concept of outlaw zones present in today's world?

Theoretically as we advance as a civilization, the areas of outlaw zones get smaller and smaller over time. Not only with advances in surveillance, but due to stabilization of lifestyles. However quite the opposite seems true for today's day and age. While crime in general has decreased, there are still sections of cities where criminals inhabit. There are still safe zones across countries to conduct illegal activity. I think a smart aspect of Neuromancer and the like is that it recognizes that as city populations increase, no advances in technology can truly eliminate crime and the black market. In fact, a lot of technology advances the "black market."

Enter the anarchy that is the internet. Policing the internet for illegal downloads and illegal threats is nearly impossible, and the mass disillusionment with government laws is a real subject of investigation. Even the best law abiding citizens commit crime on the internet, sometimes without realizing it. The big question is what will become of essentially the ultimate "outlaw zone." As we move forward with upgrading internet infrastructure and creating better software, it is inevitable that P2P will result in free distribution of all media.

Downloading movies will be as fast as downloading music, and piracy will extend for all forms of software. The flip side is the backlash from the corporations that need to make money. The only ways it could stop the internet revolution would be to
1) remove net neutrality
2) enforce some Orwellian level legislation against piracy (DMC codec tried and failed with that)
3) block of and starve the free internet with huge online companies (facebook, amazon, etc...)

Anyways I digress, the truth is technology is neutral. We have found in recent times it has created massive Outlaw Zones, and it may continue to do just that. The best defense against creating a population of criminals is to ensure a fairness in lifestyle. It is impossible to answer the question without getting political in this sense. As the gap between the rich and poor get wider, the unrest will be stronger. As many revolutions across Egypt, Iran, and other countries have shown, unfairness and political corruption will not be tolerated. Technology can serve strongly to fuel revolution. I'm not saying that in a more fair world, piracy and crime won't exist. However these "Outlaw Zones" are often the center of creativity and innovation. We must learn to see them as areas of opportunity.

Nam Jun Paik

The Question: Nam June Paik innovated the use of video, should this type of medium (video) be considered art or simply just an advancement in technology? Why?
What influence do you think Nam June Paik's work had on the development of new media art today?

Video is an art form. Why? because it is. If it wasn't I'd be wasting my time taking Video Art classes.
Nam June Paik's work definitely had a very strange style that I think massively influenced some of the main stream pop culture we saw in the late 70's, early 80's. Some of his cheesy filters and effects became mainstream staples of that bright and colorful time period for video. His innovations in manipulating video tech to create art pieces also had an influence on artists at the time. He was changing people's paradigms and understandings about how video could be used. In more recent times, it could be said that he set in motion a new mindset that various forms of presenting and manipulating video could be considered art.

Reasearch, Presentations, and Art

The CAUS research symposium had a wide range of presentations, many on personal research of the faculty into artistic mediums. However the one that drew me in the most was the presentation on the future of Graphic Design classes. The entire presentation centered around new technology and teaching techniques that Ben, Troy, and Somaya have been pushing. There was an interesting contrast between the challenges and benefits of 4 design versus freelance work. Both seemed to be positive options to prepare VCD students for the real work world. The real world for the computer artist often alternates between freelance and employed jobs. I'd love to see this idea expanded on across other art dept. such as creative Tech. During my time here I've both worked for Tech as a normal job, and done some free-lance work as well. Unfortunately my experience was varied, working for tech yielded very few hours and most free lance jobs were unpaid. It would be useful to have an option like VCD students have to learn about the best ways to approach these issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Viola new how to pick powerful locations. As zoo as they showed the interior of the silo he had chosen for 5 Angels, the aesthetic was immediately obvious. His choice of raw, industrial, metallic, and inhuman setting was the perfect frame for his projection piece. The video had an immediate effect, mostly utilizing a common color across them. This sort of contrast of colors is an aim of my senior studio. Although I'd like to have more subtle contrast, I do want the stark dramatic effect of lighting the was apparent both in Bill's videos and in his setting. The sound must correlate with the mood that the lighting is trying to convey. His art piece was more than just a narrative, it really was about creating moods.

Rights and Obligations

What right does an artist have to their own artwork? Once an artwork is bought, should the artist have any say to how it should be presented or kept? What legal responsibility does an artist have to society?


An artist has the full right to their work, however to protect it from the rest of the world (whether through variants, re-mixes, copiers etc.) you have to go through the proper legal channels for copyrighting. Luckily the passage of Creative Commons 2.0 makes this a fairly easy means of protecting your work. As a new media artist, very little of my work manifests itself in the physical realm. So I am quite used to not have the ability to sell my work, as it is usually produced with a group for pay. However, in the instances where this applies, the terms should be agreed upon at the point of purchase. If the artist had special request for how the piece was to be displayed and where, then he/she should ensure that it is included in the contract.

The Pepsi-Cola incident at The Pavilion is indeed unfortunate, but immediately made clear that the artist must lay down terms of their work at the point of purchase. Once the money is laid down, I believe the power the artist can have over their art quickly diminishes. Not to mention how much these options vary by country's law.

The legal responsibility is naught for the artist. I think we have an obligation, if the artist is exploring new frontiers, to break laws. The only real limit of an artist should be their own moral boundaries. Of course this is a dangerous idea, as morality is relative to individual people. However art is often dangerous, all new things are. We have an obligation to society to forge new territory and ideas. A responsible artist would know how to bend the rules and expose new truths and viewpoints without endangering anyone. Because of the fluid nature of law, considering it often varies from state to country, it can't be an ultimate reference point for where artists should stop. I think there is at least a certain degree of common sense that an artist must employ when making and showing art. It would be desirable to be libertarian about this, and set this limits to whatever doesn't disturb others. However the power of art lies in it's ability to expose people to concepts, ideas, and aesthetics they haven't seen before.

What the Future means for the Past

What becomes of old art forms as new technologies develop? It is a difficult to answer, because it is quite rare to see entire art forms die off. Usually there are still a few artist that cling to old techniques. Consider photography, nobody makes callotypes or daguerrotypes anymore. The question arises, as new technologies create new techniques from creating and showing art, are we still creating the same art? Fundamentally in many cases it is the same idea. Graffiti to cave painting, photo shop to canvas painting, drawn animation to FBF computer animation. However there entirely new forms that have arisen from technologies such as photography and video that crate a whole different art. This is mentioned in the article that these form pierce into reality and demonstrate a deeper meaning in our daily real world. However previous art forms had to recreate and interpret these using human imagination and bias.

While the old techniques and mediums for art still exist, largely a lot of the principles that come with them can be lost. Tens of thousands of people can use photo shop, but probably only a hand ful of them probably know what the burn/dodge tool actually means. In fact such an effect can be replicated by different means than that algorithm. That is if we wish to replicate the effect at all. A lot of post photographic techniques arise out of a need to fix a picture because the machine (camera) failed to represent something the way we want it. It is possible for such concepts to drop out completely. (We do however see a revival of intentionally making error in film, to recreate our old feeling of film.) We spend a lot of time in 3D animation avoiding the computer perfect look.

Something that old mediums and techniques do face today is new expectations. The people viewing these mediums expect a level of convenience and an amount of public notoriety that can draw their interest. Like the British dude said, the days of patronage are over. It can also be argued we expect more content than used to be expected. many musician release multiple albums to stay "relevant," and using old techniques and mediums usually take longer to achieve the desired effect. The expectations are simply different, especially as new technology streamlines the art making process.